iPhone ad rapped as 'misleading'

[FakeWozniak]

Technically, the Internet is defined as the set of machines accessible by the IP protocol. Wikipedia agrees. Both my copies of Stevens and Comer agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
(See the comment in the Terminology section)

Technically Apple is right by this definition. The iPhone is able to access the entire internet. Well, as much as any other computer connected via a typical ISP. If you nit pick, it cannot access machines behind NAT firewalls, machines behind VPNs, etc. But it can access all IP addresses available from any other ISP.

The Internet is NOT a collection of applications or protocols. That would be the World Wide Web. For example, you cannot include things like telnet, ftp, RTSP, etc. in the Internet. The majority of the ephemeral ports are unconnectible by an iPhone. Many personal computers cannot access the entire Internet if you reference applications/protocols. I would argue that it is a scientific law that NO computer can access EVERY application/protocol.

Please realise that you cannot use anything above layer 3 in Tannenbaum to qualify the "entire Internet".

Just my 2 pence.

 

[Excellerator]

Why do the fanboys feel they have to blindly defend Apple's shortcomings.

I have noticed this on just about everything in the month or so I have been on here. I guess when you own a Mac you get used to its short comings and don't realize how much more the PC does. So they are doing the same thing here they are just good at defending what the Mac and iPhone lacks.

My thinking is if Apple really wanted the best phone it would have had Flash, Java in the internet part. It would also support standard video files like Divx, Xvid, FLV, Windows Media, Realmedia, etc in the Ipod part. Heck even many of the lower priced PMPs do those simple tasks. Not to mention, being able to just drop and drag songs/pictures/data to the phone as if it were a flash drive. Now THAT would be a good phone. Bascially make it a portable computer not a locked box (that can't even hold data without crashing every couple days.)

I hate how everyone says Microsoft has a monopoly because they add Internet Explorer to Windows, or they add this or they add that. How do hell do people not see Apple has control over WHAT you put on your computer, what you put IN your computer, etc. Shouldn't that be YOUR choice????? Afterall, its YOUR computer/phone not Steve Jobs.

I know I will get flamed by the fanboys, but its just because they don't know any better.

 

[FakeWozniak]

"You never know which part of the internet you'll need,…

"The 'do you need sun cream' part… (as he's using Weather app)

"The 'what's the quickest way to the airport' part… (as he's using Maps app)

"The 'what about an ocean view' part… (as he's using Safari app)

"Or the 'can you really afford this' part… (as he's using Stocks app)

"Which is why all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone." (as he's answering a phone call)

A very interesting and well-thought out advertisement, if you ask me.

I like your view on this. Wanted to quote it to give it more airtime. It's odd how reasonable arguments like this are drowned out by bickering and repetition and repetition of bickering. Few if any replies to this because it makes sense and is clear.

I like the /. idea with scores, then I can filter out the crap.

Maybe we should have a flame bait topic of the day to distract all the petty arguments.

Monday can be the value of Flash.
Tuesday can be Apples monopoly on hardware.
Wednesday can talk about 3G being slow.
and so on

(Arn, can you have a poll about what topics are the most controversial? )

 

[daihard]

My thinking is if Apple really wanted the best phone it would have had Flash, Java in the internet part. It would also support standard video files like Divx, Xvid, FLV, Windows Media, Realmedia, etc in the Ipod part.

Since when Windows Media and RealMedia have been standard video formats?

I personally believe the iPhone is the best smartphone out there. That is why I bought it myself. If you don't agree, you don't have to buy it. Simple as that.

 

[Excellerator]

Since when Windows Media and RealMedia have been standard video formats?


I personally believe the iPhone is the best smartphone out there. That is why I bought it myself. If you don't agree, you don't have to buy it. Simple as that.

Windows Media and Real Media are available, why not add them? I have seen lots of sites that use them, even Amazon. All they need is a video or audio codec and support all the major standards. As something new comes out.....add it. Keeps things up to date.

I also bought the iPhone based on recommendations from a friend that has the 1G model. I have had the worse luck with mine, I am SERIOUSLY thinking of sticking it on Ebay and charging up my old "Smartphone" that actually remembers data and doesn't require a restore every other day. So far, the only thing I see the iPhone gains is a larger screen. My old phone with Opera Mini does all the rest.

 

[daihard]

Windows Media and Real Media are available, why not add them? I have lots of sites that use them, even Amazon. All they need is a video or audio codec and support all the major standards. As something new comes out.....add it. Keeps things up to date.

I am merely disputing your apparent claim that Windows Media and RealMedia are standard video formats, which are not.

I'd rather that Apple keep the iPhone slim with just the necessary set of features. What's "necessary," of course, depends upon who you ask. For me, the iPhone is just about right in that regard. I've also been pretty much trouble-free since I bought mine in mid-July, including the solid 3G performance.

 

[Mazda 3s]

I am merely disputing your apparent claim that Windows Media and RealMedia are standard video formats, which are not.

I'd rather that Apple keep the iPhone slim with just the necessary set of features. What's "necessary," of course, depends upon who you ask. For me, the iPhone is just about right in that regard. I've also been pretty much trouble-free since I bought mine in mid-July, including the solid 3G performance.

I couldn't care less about RealMedia or Windows Media, but DiVX and XViD should be a given.

 

[paj]

Since when Windows Media and RealMedia have been standard video formats?...

Ever since they were installed/supported on 90% of all personal computers in the world.

How about Quicktime? Is that a standard video format?

 

[GutBomb]

Apple was not being intentionally misleading. they were simply implying that websites look like this:



not like this:

And they are completely obvious about it. They are not implying you can use flash a non-standard 3rd party plugin on the phone, they are claiming you can view real websites, not "mobile websites."

I never saw it as misleading because i didn't read into it to say "YOU CAN USE EVERY INTERNET PLUGIN"

 

[Excellerator]

Ever since they were installed/supported on 90% of all personal computers in the world.

How about Quicktime? Is that a standard video format?

Thank you!!! Anyone that has used the internet in the last 10 years has used one or both of them. I couldn't see how he didn't understand that.

 

[macUser2007]

... Tell me, what does Flash do that other, more traditional text and graphics formats do not do except for added cosmetic beauty?

Dunno, but such "cosmetic beauty" counts for a lot for some of us, and Apple built a big business charging a premium for it. (Thank the force for that, BTW.)

BTW, after a statement like this, I'd hate to meet your girlfriend

... Oh, BTW, I love CLI ...
I am seriously hoping that Apple's lack of support for Flash will actually encourage Web admins to abandon Flash.

LOL, O.K., at least you are consistent

But you do realize, that if Adobe actually pulled it's apps, including Flash, from the Mac platform, OS X will hit the floor in a couple of years.

Flash is good, it's here to stay, and Apple should have integrated it from the start.

 

[aristotle]

I'm sorry but Java, Flash or other plugins are not the "web" let alone the internet. HTML, Javascript, text and images are the web standards that make up the web.

Why are the brits so anal and why would a couple of complaints lead to an advertisement being taken off the air so quickly? I could imagine some competitors using sock puppets to take advantage of this and disrupt the advertising of other companies.

 

[macgruder]

Thank you!!! Anyone that has used the internet in the last 10 years has used one or both of them. I couldn't see how he didn't understand that.

Really? How about blind people?

This issue isn't whether Flash is popular, but whether it's an official standard. To those who imagine that the Web Standards Organization are out of touch, nothing could be further from the truth:

It's because of web standards that the web has not become fragmented into a 'you require IE x.x with a screen size of 768px, and a dog called Fido' to view this page. Sites that adhere to web standards tend to be readable by a larger segment of the population than those that don't - in keeping with the ethos that the Web is a place for all, they need to consider the needs of the blind and handicapped as as well as all possible devices etc. This is no simple task.

They have a mechanism in place to allow 3rd party extensions to be embedded into a page whether it be flash, a movie or whatever. But this doesn't make Flash itself a standard any more than a car-radio is a standard.

Do developers like myself hate Flash? Absolutely not. What we do hate is unnecessary Flash. For example, 'snazzy' drop down menus in Flash (use Javascript instead) that are totally unreadable to an important segment of the population as well as having numerous other problems regarding navigation and search. But Flash can be extremely useful. The Guardian has many outstanding Flash animations:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2008/jun/12/carbon.capture
for example.

It's unfortunate that Flash has come to be used for embedding movies - one of those 'necessary' fudges due to inconsistent support of browsers of embedding a more appropriate 'system'.

There are numerous possible reasons for Apple not embedding Flash. I think a major one is probably the issue of Flash driven ads. A site like this has numerous ads that are not integral to the viewing experience and are probably replaced by non-Flash versions. However, having Flash in the iPhone would mean that these ads would appear and that would most likely seriously impact the battery life - all for something that is not necessary in this case. There are probably stability issues too. I suspect a future update will address add some sort of Flash support.

Regarding the ad. It seems to me as much a language issue as anything. If an airline says: 'we fly to all parts of the world', I don't expect them to fly to every country, and I certainly wouldn't call their ad a lie if they went to all the continents and many countries within them.

btw, the use of 'fan boy' is simply ad hominem. It's a useful 'idiot filter' to discern people with nothing useful to say.

 

[wreckshop]

Technically, the Internet is defined as the set of machines accessible by the IP protocol. Wikipedia agrees. Both my copies of Stevens and Comer agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
(See the comment in the Terminology section)

Technically Apple is right by this definition. The iPhone is able to access the entire internet. Well, as much as any other computer connected via a typical ISP. If you nit pick, it cannot access machines behind NAT firewalls, machines behind VPNs, etc. But it can access all IP addresses available from any other ISP.

By tat definition, any phone equipped with a browser can access the entire internet. Including phones with only WAP browsers. I don't think that's the definition apple had in mind when using the term "entire internet."

 

[macUser2007]

By tat definition, any phone equipped with a browser can access the entire internet. Including phones with only WAP browsers. I don't think that's the definition apple had in mind when using the term "entire internet."

Bingo!

Unfortunately some here have their heads so far up a dark place, they can't see it.

Oh, and speaking of "standards," would they be supportive of banks which didn't support Macs online, because they were not "standard," the way it was a few years ago?

Yeah, and nobody cared for 3G, either.... Jokes....

 

[bluenoise]

Apple was not being intentionally misleading. they were simply implying that websites look like this:



not like this:

And they are completely obvious about it. They are not implying you can use flash a non-standard 3rd party plugin on the phone, they are claiming you can view real websites, not "mobile websites."

I never saw it as misleading because i didn't read into it to say "YOU CAN USE EVERY INTERNET PLUGIN"

Please don't muddy the waters here with common sense.

 

[macgruder]

Oh, and speaking of "standards," would they be supportive of banks which didn't support Macs online, because they were not "standard," the way it was a few years ago?

You're confusing the word standard again. Standard does not equate to marketshare.

Safari has broadly supported web-standards for a number of years now (and IE on Windows, which the banks required, has historically had the worst support for standards). The reason the banks didn't support Safari was because the banks themselves didn't build their sites to web-standards but in fact ignored web-standards. You've totally contradicted yourself here.

A further irony is that IE 5 on the Mac in 2000 had pretty good support for standards (in its time) and was one of the first to do so. It took IE on Windows years to catch up with IE on the Mac.

 

[k'five]

Well, I'm glad.

I hate flash & Java as much as the next guy, but the reality is, a large percentage of the web runs on it, and it's dishonest every time Apple says things like:

"It's the entire internet at your fingertips"
"features a fully functional internet experience"
"This is not the web watered down"
etc.

They should definitely tout that it comes with a great browser, far and away better than what anyone else has done.

They need to stick to what it does and does well, not reach to make claims it doesn't live up to. It already does some amazing stuff that no one elses device does. There's plenty to brag about there. Stretching the truth in ads possibly yields more immediate sales, but definitely yields more disappointment, and a lot less customers who want to renew that contract and buy another device when the time comes.

Advertising as a method of damage control has always bothered me as insidiously deceitful. It's like when Ford used to say "Quality is Job #1". Ford was bottom of the barrel in quality at that time. Don't f*cking lie to us, be honest, tout your strengths, and say "We make some cheapass cars." Otherwise, you're not selling to your clientele, and you're not satisfying who you are selling to. A recipe for disaster.

 

[AlphaBob]

Apple excels at several things, one of which is marketing hyperbolae. It is both a blessing to them and a curse (blessing in the sense that it is in no small part responsible for the increased perception that Apple makes superior products, and curse because their sweeping claims often annoy the crap out of people who know what reality is).

This is a typical example of a problem caused by their advertising which used a hyperbole so large and obvious that it couldn’t slip past the UK sensors (which lets all sorts of crap get out there like “Guinness for health!”)

Rather than spend their life parsing definitions of what IP means, true fanboys should be reminding Apple every chance they can that to be the BEST product out there, they need to deal with some shortcomings. For Safari on the iPhone it means getting it to run Flash and Java. Sure the iPhone has the best web experience of any phone I’ve ever used, but it falls short of what I require to say it is a complete experience. It is just an example of a best-in-class product that still isn’t good enough.

Censoring the commercial was an unusual step, but it probably illustrates that Apple marketing has stepped on so many toes that it will be harder to slip in wild claims in the future.

 

[macgruder]

For Safari on the iPhone it means getting it to run Flash and Java. Sure the iPhone has the best web experience of any phone I’ve ever used, but it falls short of what I require to say it is a complete experience. It is just an example of a best-in-class product that still isn’t good enough.

This of course assumes that it's Apple who needs to write a stable flash/java engine that will work well on the Safari for the iPhone without impacting battery usage etc. Well written websites have always considered users may not be able to use Flash. This temporary issue simply crystalizes that situation nicely. I'd prefer Safari in its present state than one with a java/flash engine that renders it unusable - whether or not the option can be turned off.

I still agree that the wording of the ad was somewhat misleading though.

 

[henjin]

Who is everyone? You and I knew there was no flash but the general public doesn't since they don't all hang out here on the forums. This is about whether advertising is accurately portraying how the iphone works--and it doesn't.

I agree it's the advert not the iPhone that's being debated. I use an iPhone EDGE and it's great. I however know safari on the iPhone or iTouch is not like browsing on a desktop. In the U.K. they have strict standards, rightly so. This was a misleading advert. There is no argument about that.

But to defend a bad advert by saying the iPhone is great is pathetic. Of course the iPhone is great, it's just not a full platform yet. Flash we'll come in the next hardware upgrade next year....

 

[BaldiMac]

Bingo!

Unfortunately some here have their heads so far up a dark place, they can't see it.

Oh, and speaking of "standards," would they be supportive of banks which didn't support Macs online, because they were not "standard," the way it was a few years ago?

Yeah, and nobody cared for 3G, either.... Jokes....

Once again, we are speaking of Internet and Web Standards. If the bank supported the standard (rather the simply the popular, ie Internet Explorer), the sites would have been accessible on a Mac. That is the point of an official standard. To make it so the web can be interpreted the same way regardless of platform.

Banks shouldn't support Macs. They should support standards.

 

[JGowan]

The Thread's Dead (so I felt I could indulge myself in a long one)…

Most everyone here is missing the point…

Everyone's talking about whether Flash/Java are standards or just 3rd party plug-ins; or whether the UK knee-jerks faster the US; or whether you're an Apple FanBoi or not. I don't think REAL attention has been paid to the actual commercial and just what the commercial says and does. People refer to it in their posts and yet I've seen many people actually quote words and phrases not even in the ad. Why? The link was there for all to see at the beginning of this thread.

As I've said before in a previous post (no response: thanks) is that the ad is a play on the word "part". If you're blindly posting based on what you've read here rather than seeing the commercial, then shame on you. Click the link and watch the video. It is very thoughtful, playful and grabs your attention.

The issue at hand is what the ad truly stands for; To not twist it to make it uglier than it is but yet not sugar-coat it so that's easier to swallow. The Powers that Be in the UK deamed it misleading, but rather than dealing with whether this is the Apple's current modes operandi or whether Apple is the new Microsoft (a.k.a the Devil), let's deal with the AD itself and decide what it's really saying (and selling) in the 30 seconds it was given to make a statement.

The Ad is a play on the word "PART": but that's really only the way the message gets worded. What is "part" anyway? It's INFORMATION. Information that is being pulled from somewhere on the internet.

What I think the ad is doing is this -- it's showing you several Apps (Weather, Maps, Stocks), which access the Internet but are stand-alone apps that really only do ONE thing per app. They're all very useful apps that most everyone could use quite frequently. But they're limited.

Apple simply wants its customer to know that they're not just stuck with the few apps that Apple has created for a few parts of INFORMATION you might need, but you actually can gather information from the internet no matter what INFORMATION you might be needing that was NOT covered in the ad (with Apple's specialized apps.)

I think people are missing the real point of the ad. They're getting hung up on whether the iPhone can view every single page on the internet (which frankly no browser probably can without some serious plug-in installing).

The point of the ad is that whatever INFORMATION you need, you have access to it. And it's true. Google something and millions of pages come back pertaining to your need. Yes, while the iPhone cannot pull up every page on the internet that you might want to see, it has access to millions more that will most likely answer your question. That's what the internet does -- it pulls all these different ideas and opinions together for everyone to see. If the iPhone won't show the flash website you wanted to see on the road about a certain topic, try the next google link, or the next one, or the next one…

Apple could've put a light grey disclaimer at the bottom for the entire length of the commercial or had one of those Fast Talkers spit out 300 words in 6 seconds to cover their ass, but how utterly lame would that have been? That's what most companies would do. Apple isn't most companies. Whether you like or not, they're unique. Also, they assume most people will look at their straight-forward commercials, use their brain and get the uncomplicated message (in this case, the iPhone gives you access to Internet information from the real internet not a WAP one). I guess they assumed wrong.

Why doesn't Apple just add Java and Flash? The topic has hotly been debated over the last 24 hours and it mostly centers around battery life and these plug-ins' affect on it; bugginess; and not being able to control 3rd party companies and their wares VS. web standards. Considering (for instance) Adobe being last at the Intel Native App Party with CS3, I imagine Apple doesn't want to rely on a company that's slower than most. Better to exclude them now, let them get their act together and put them on later when Flash works well on the iPhone than to be dealing with possible issues over this past year. You have to ask yourself, if it's been a year and Flash is still not on the iPhone, whose fault is it really? In the meantime, Apple has completed vast amount of work with their 2.0 software (Enterprise and the App Store) and yet where's Flash?

I for one have always considered Apple the James Brown of Electronics and applaud them for not shoving every bloated feature and buggy plug-in on their phone just because their competitors have it. This shows that they're actually looking out for the phone's best interest and the those of their customers. Their products may not be perfect but they're constantly being improved either physically or with software updates and are products that I'm proud to own and use every single day.

How about you?

 

[troyhark]

Let me clarify. From your discription of the average consumer in the UK, I'm led to believe that the average consumer in the UK is dense. I never said that you're all dense

One of the densest things on here is yourself. Not to say borderline racist as I doubt UK consumers really differ from American ones.
Even if one is technically minded and does research, finding what a product actually does as opposed to what it claims to do is actually extremely difficult. Most staff selling electrical goods do not know how to fully use most products due to the incredibly fast turnover of a huge variety of kit, plus, the variety of phone OSs and variations even with a single manufacturer.
The fact that the iPhone does not support flash or java is not something I realised whilst playing with it or from reading reviews as many 'reviews' are written by idiots with a few minutes playing time of 'tested' item or regurgitated press releases. There is a lot of info on the web. The huge majority is chaff, sieving through to find quality info, that also applies to your specific needs is quite a challenge. Even product reviews of Apple gear in Mac magazines can overloook even blatant problems, as do fawning Mac sites.
The amount of bias and stupidity online is enormous and it seems like a high proportion of mouthbreathers are posting on this thread bizarrely defending defending Apple's corporate fibbing.
Apple are an avaricious greedy, money grabbing company who don't let truth interfere with a good adverising campaign. They are just like every other big multinational/national. It's not a few mates in a garage anymore, it's big business. Very, very big business and like all big business, Apple behave more like a psycopath than your kind uncle bob.

 

[troyhark]

plus, you can visit any website with the iphone, period. there are many websites that do not support the browser you might be using, or require a plug-in that might not be available for your platform. anyhow that is entirely the content provider's fault. there are nice ways of displaying almost all kinds of animation etc. without the need to use flash.

Interesting weasel wording. Ever thought about becoming a politician?

Now buying a phone that claims to see all of the web, yet will not use the Flash plugin that is so near universal, the quickest way to guarantee a universal browser experience is to use that pvery lugin is simply talking complete BS.
Imagine if MS launched a phone that ignored flash in favour of silverlight. All the sad macolytes on here that are defending Apple over this behaviour would go completely beserk over a similar MS decision.

I'm a photographer and like many photographers use a Mac. Also many professional photographers have websites are flash based. Part of my new site will have a flash slideshow component, why? As many have found it is often the best and easiest way to do so.
Yet if we buy a phone to go with our Mac, we cannot see our websites. Duh!
Using Flash does not automatically mean it is badly designed/bloated. And considering the huge amount of dreadful looking, poorly coded and bloated HTML out there, why don't people ever complain about that when they blame Flash for all societie's ills.